On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 9:24 AM Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 5:49 PM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 11/21/22 09:35, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > I've been playing around with removing the legacy VRP code for the > > > next release. It's a layered onion to get this right, but the first > > > bit is pretty straightforward and may be useful for this release. > > > Basically, it entails removing the old VRP pass itself, along with > > > value_range_equiv which have no producers left. The current users of > > > value_range_equiv don't put anything in the equivalence bitmaps, so > > > they're basically behaving like plain value_range. > > > > > > I removed as much as possible without having to change any behavior, > > > and this is what I came up with. Is this something that would be > > > useful for this release? Would it help release managers have less > > > unused cruft in the tree? > > > > > > Neither Andrew nor I have any strong feelings here. We don't foresee > > > the legacy code changing at all in the offseason, so we can just > > > accumulate these patches in local trees. > > > > I'd lean towards removal after gcc-13 releases. > > I think removing the ability to switch to the old implementation easens > maintainance so I'd prefer to have this before the gcc-13 release. > > So please go ahead.
Btw, ASSERT_EXPR should also go away with this, no? Richard. > Thanks, > Richard. > > > > > jeff > >
